2008 Pa. Super. 59 - Commonwealth v. Jette’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 2011
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Anders v. California · Pennsylvania v. Finley · 379 Pa. Super. 390 - Commonwealth v. Finley · Commonwealth v. McGill · Commonwealth v. Williams
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We begin by reviewing our well established procedures for handling documents filed pro se by represented appellants. These procedures are guided by our Supreme Court’s holding that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation, neither on appeal, nor at trial. [Commonwealth v.] Ellis, 534 Pa. [176,] 180, 626 A.2d [1137,] 1139 [(1993)]. When an appellant who is represented by counsel files a pro se petition, brief, or motion, this Court forwards the document to his counsel. 210 Pa.Code § 65.24; Ellis, 534 Pa. at 180, 626 A.2d at 1139. If the brief alleges ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, counsel is required to petition this Court for remand. Ellis, 534 Pa. at 180, 626 A.2d at 1139; Lawrence, 596 A.2d at 168 . In the petition for remand, counsel must cite appellant’s allegations of ineffectiveness and provide this Court with an evaluation of those claims. Commonwealth v. Blystone, [ ] 617 A.2d 778, 782 ([Pa.Super.] 1992); Lawrence, 596 A.2d at 168 . This Court will then determine whether or not a remand for appointment of new counsel is required, based on our review of counsel’s petition and the record. Blystone, 617 A.2d at 782 ; Lawrence, 596 A.2d at 168 . We stress that this Court does not review the pro se brief, but rather reviews counsel’s analysis of the issues raised pro se. Blystone, 617 A.2d at 782 ; Lawrence, 596 A.2d at 168 . The process has similarities to the procedures required of appointed counsel who seeks to withdraw from representing an appel”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.